Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #8331 > unrolled thread

CarrierIQ Software and Forth

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth

Contents

  CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:03 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-23 19:14 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 01:52 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-24 04:06 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-24 14:56 +0100
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-24 17:53 +0200
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:23 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 12:14 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 02:19 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Dennis Ruffer <daruffer@gmail.com> - 2011-12-25 12:58 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-25 23:53 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-25 13:25 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:10 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) - 2011-12-25 22:36 +0200
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-26 00:09 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-28 08:36 -0800
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 09:43 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-27 09:56 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-27 11:08 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 22:38 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2011-12-27 22:01 -1000
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-28 02:20 -0800
                            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:12 -0800
                              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 14:15 -0800
                                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:56 +0100
                                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2011-12-28 15:07 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:11 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-27 22:01 +0100
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2011-12-28 11:11 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 13:57 +0100
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 11:00 +0000
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 08:39 -0800
                      GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-28 12:32 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 12:07 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 23:19 +0100
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-29 08:38 +0000
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 04:59 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 14:04 +0100
                                Re: GPL Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-30 00:12 +0400
                                  Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-29 21:48 +0100
                                    Re: GPL Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-29 23:50 +0100
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:00 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:38 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:46 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 22:58 +0100
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-31 21:20 -0500
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 01:46 -0800
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-01 04:43 -0600
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-01 16:45 +0100
                                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 08:19 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:13 -0600
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:15 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-29 18:07 -0500
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 16:21 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-30 01:43 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:55 -0800
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 10:38 +0100
                                      Re: GPL cas_news@strotmann.de (Carsten Strotmann (Usenet)) - 2011-12-30 11:12 +0100
                                        Re: GPL anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 13:14 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2011-12-30 13:40 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:24 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2012-01-02 08:19 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 15:46 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-12-30 20:26 +0100
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Spam@ControlQ.com - 2012-01-01 14:45 -0500
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:28 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 02:03 -0500
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:33 +0000
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Brad <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2011-12-30 17:30 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Arnold Doray <invalid@invalid.com> - 2011-12-30 17:07 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:26 -0600
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:00 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2011-12-30 12:18 +0000
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 12:49 -0800
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-29 04:37 -0600
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:09 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2011-12-30 04:21 -0600
                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-29 13:53 +0000
                          Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:58 -0800
                            Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2011-12-30 11:05 +0000
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 13:54 -0800
                                Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-01 11:51 +0000
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:33 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:33 +0000
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-02 11:40 -0800
                                  Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-01 12:37 -0800
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Albert van der Horst <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> - 2012-01-02 10:36 +0000
                                    Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-02 14:27 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Alex McDonald <blog@rivadpm.com> - 2012-01-05 04:08 -0800
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 17:40 +0100
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 04:59 -0800
                                      Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2012-01-05 09:49 -0600
                                        Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2012-01-05 07:56 -0800
                              Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth] BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-30 14:00 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 10:33 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-28 11:30 -0800
                        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> - 2011-12-28 15:28 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-29 11:49 -0800
                          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth jyf <jyf1987@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 08:32 -0800
                      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2011-12-28 22:26 +0100
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2011-12-27 20:22 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> - 2011-12-24 09:11 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-24 09:29 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Aleksej Saushev <asau@inbox.ru> - 2011-12-26 00:29 +0400
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Ian Osgood <iano@quirkster.com> - 2011-12-27 14:15 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> - 2011-12-27 16:29 -0600
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-27 21:10 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Mark Wills <markrobertwills@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-29 23:46 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2011-12-31 16:41 -0800
    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2011-12-31 20:50 -0800
      Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-01 18:14 -0800
        Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-01 21:33 -0800
          Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> - 2012-01-02 01:57 -0500
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-02 04:45 -0800
            Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-02 07:36 -0800
              Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Bernd Paysan <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> - 2012-01-05 15:13 +0100
                Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 13:15 -0800
                  Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:19 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Krishna Myneni <krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org> - 2012-01-05 16:22 -0800
                    Re: CarrierIQ Software and Forth Trey Boudreau <trey.boudreau@gmail.com> - 2012-01-05 17:17 -0800

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

#8495 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Are you talking about Freedom for the user of the source or Freedom
for the information contained in the source itself?

That's an either/or: you cannot guarantee complete freedom for the
user without granting the user freedom to hide their extensions to the
source; you cannot guarantee complete freedom for the information
contained in the source without limiting user freedom to hide their
extensions to the source.

After all, its not like the GPL was invented in response to a
hypothetical. The experience of having tools and libraries contributed
to the public domain and then people developing extensions to them in
the dark is the ultimate in "rebadging" a license, and the consequence
is that the free riders profiting from the code discourages some
contributors from making further contribution to the public domain.

And on the socialism/capitalism debate, taking capitalism and calling
it socialism does not make it so. Copyright, on which the GPL is
based, is an institution of that old-fashioned individual capitalism
under which the creator of a new work gets to say who does and who
does not have permission to copy that work and under what terms. Which
includes *and has always included* when the owner of a resource makes
a bequest to the community. If Andrew Carnegie got to say how the
libraries founded with his money would be run, then Stallman gets to
say under what terms people may use all of or (preferably) bits of
that monstrous Emacs of his.

The GPL certainly is not socialism. If it was socialism, there would
be collective decision making as to who had the right to use the
source and who does not, not the individual author making that
decision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8589 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

Burnt Peasant <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:

> Well, nobody.  It's like your beloved BSDL and MIT licenced projects, 
> they have no protection either.

That's what you religious zealots keep missing. Open source is not about
protection, it's about contribution. You're such a bunch of gimme gimme
socialists you just can't understand the giving part of the equation. For
you it's all about *taking*.

> Their work can be made proprietary or incorporated into a GPL program, as
> it happens every day.

So what? They let you use it with no conditions except "don't say you wrote
this" and that rather than strong-arming people to practice your religion,
is what makes free software truly free. Use it however you want. It's
software not theology except when you sickos start twisting it.

> How can trolls like you argue in favor of what you try to argue against, 
> and not realize what you are doing?  Too stubborn!

You're blinded by your faith in the Church of Stallman and you sacrificed
your soul on the FSF...hope you and Andy will have a wonderful life
together, get a room you two ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8599 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

In article <e8bfa396d5429505f842f4e905fd1683@dizum.com>,
Nomen Nescio  <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Bernd Paysan  <bernd.paysan@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Their work can be made proprietary or incorporated into a GPL program, as
>> it happens every day.
>
>So what? They let you use it with no conditions except "don't say you wrote
>this" and that rather than strong-arming people to practice your religion,
>is what makes free software truly free. Use it however you want. It's
>software not theology except when you sickos start twisting it.

That is what the BSD people do: "Keep my name and all of the following
contributors in this source to all eternity."
If I publish my GPL-derived source as GPL, that is enough. No need to
mention the original authors, even if it is the right thing to do.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8492 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:

> What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
> non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
> becomes GPL'd code.

Yes and I am just waiting for the day they do that with gcc and its shitty
runtime so everything you ever compile and link with gcc from then on
becomes a "derivative work" and therefore everything that depends on gcc is
now forcibly open sourced. Impossible scenario? I think not...

> GNU could convert the most of the GLIBC from LGPL to GPL stop all releases
> of LGPL'd versions.  It'd only take a few generations of Linux distributions
> before all LGPL'd versions would be forever lost.

Yep but the scenario I expect is far worse than Linux. Plenty of people are
stupid enough to use gcc for projects on Linux and elsewhere.

> This is someone else deciding for them what they should and them doing so
> because they've adopted that ideology, like a cult.

Yeah but if you question their religion they ask you to do "soul searching".
How sad, it goes that deep...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8568 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Fri, 30 Dec 2011, Fritz Wuehler wrote:

> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:26:04 +0100
> From: Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201112.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
> Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
> Subject: Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]
> 
> "Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> wrote:
>
>> What is that then?  That allows *anyone* to change the LGPL'd terms to
>> non-LGPL'd terms, i.e., GPL license terms.  The re-released code then
>> becomes GPL'd code.
>
> Yes and I am just waiting for the day they do that with gcc and its shitty
> runtime so everything you ever compile and link with gcc from then on
> becomes a "derivative work" and therefore everything that depends on gcc is
> now forcibly open sourced. Impossible scenario? I think not...

This is why the FreeBSD project has adopted the LLVM/CLANG compiler to 
replace the gcc in building the system.  And a nice compiler it is!

>
>> GNU could convert the most of the GLIBC from LGPL to GPL stop all releases
>> of LGPL'd versions.  It'd only take a few generations of Linux distributions
>> before all LGPL'd versions would be forever lost.
>
> Yep but the scenario I expect is far worse than Linux. Plenty of people are
> stupid enough to use gcc for projects on Linux and elsewhere.

A mistake, to be sure, but one for which a solution is nigh.  Clang is 
available on Linux, and I'm not entirely sure about the ability to compile 
the kernel, but given that it is so inexorably linked to GPL, it matters 
not, at this point.

>
>> This is someone else deciding for them what they should and them doing so
>> because they've adopted that ideology, like a cult.
>
> Yeah but if you question their religion they ask you to do "soul searching".
> How sad, it goes that deep...
>
>

It is pretty clear to the discerning thinker that the BSD style license is 
superior in every way.  Arguments about making BSD licensed software 
proprietary (as Microsoft did when they appropriated the TCP/IP stack from 
BSD for Windows), are balanced by the idea that BSD software remains free, 
in spite of what some may do with it, and better it imposes no 
restrictions upon the rights of others.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8570 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Jan 1, 2:45 pm, S...@ControlQ.com wrote:
...
> It is pretty clear to the discerning thinker that the BSD style
> license is superior in every way.  Arguments about making BSD
> licensed software proprietary (as Microsoft did when they
> appropriated the TCP/IP stack from BSD for Windows), are balanced by
> ...

Of course, the "better in every way" claim is contradicted as soon as
you start trading off consequences of distinctly different types,
since there is a set of priorities for which the cost is a higher
priority than the "balancing" benefit.

A BSD style license is better for one set of goals. Claiming its
better "in every way" is an example of undermining an argument by
making it overambitious.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8587 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

<Spam@ControlQ.com> wrote in message
news:alpine.BSF.2.00.1201011438450.28799@yoko.controlq.com...
>
> This is why the FreeBSD project has adopted the LLVM/CLANG
> compiler to replace the gcc in building the system.
>

I thought *BSD were resurrecting and updating the original PCC ...  That
seemed like a good choice.

LCC may be a good choice compiler-wise, although the license is probably an
issue for them.

It seems no one is using TenDRA ... ?  It was released under a government
license.  Somehow there is now BSD licensed version.


Rod Pemberton

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8472 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

"Rod Pemberton" <do_not_have@noavailemail.cmm> writes:
>"Arnold Doray" <invalid@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:jdh8u3$ec1$1@dont-email.me...
>> If this were true, it would be impossible to use the GPL on Windows
>> applications.
>>
>
>I'm not sure of the correct answer, but it may be dynamic linking, i.e., no
>static linking between GPL and proprietary operating system code or
>libraries ...

No, dynamic linking does not change things (some people, especially
programmers, wonder if it changes what is legally possible, but it
appears that the lawyers think that it doesn't).

What makes it possible to distribute GPLed applications for
proprietary platforms (starting with the original GNU tools on
proprietary Unices) is the exception for the operating system and
system libraries.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8509 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 30, 5:33 am, an...@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl)
wrote:
> What makes it possible to distribute GPLed applications for
> proprietary platforms (starting with the original GNU tools on
> proprietary Unices) is the exception for the operating system and
> system libraries.
Think back to the old Mac Toolbox, which was a library in ROM. I
assume this toolbox would fall under "OS/system libraries". Were apps
statically or dynamically linked to the toolbox? I mean, a JSR or TRAP
instruction would be statically compiled but the application didn't
touch the function until run time.

I'm pretty sure a GPLed app would be free to use the toolbox of such a
closed, proprietary system. Even if

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8482 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Thu, 29 Dec 2011 04:59:47 -0500, Rod Pemberton wrote:

> LGPL is always touted as the solution to these issues.  History has
> proven otherwise.  The basic premise of the LGPL is sound except for one
> critical license term which nullifies it's premise entirely.  Let's
> disregard the fact that Stallman and/or the FSF is trying to kill off
> all LGPL code with GPLv3.  Let's also disregard Stallman's encoding of
> his clearly socialist political beliefs in a FOSS license.  Let's also
> disregard the fact that the FOSS is killing the commercial market for
> programmers and leaving them without jobs or food.  A huge part of the

In my experience, it's the opposite. FOSS *creates* many new 
opportinities for programmers. Most programmers are employed in corporate 
IT depts, not in software companies. In these environments, there is very 
often the need to use FOSS. 


> problem with the LGPL is that LGPL code can be converted to GPL code at
> will.  

So what? You still have the old codebase under LGPL. You could turn BSD 
code into GPL if you wanted to.

> That's the critical license term that is killing the LGPL.  I.e.,
> the license terms for the LGPL'd source can be changed by a third party
> without the original copyright holder's permission.  The third party can
> change the license terms to the more restrictive GPL license terms. 

Isn't that just what Apple has done with BSD Unix? Is that acceptable? 
And if it is what's your point?

> License "rebranding" is a huge negative for a supposedly FOSS license. 
> Another part of the problem with the LGPL is that the biggest library
> claiming to be LGPL, i.e., GNU's own GLIBC, is not purely LGPL, so the
> entire GLIBC library must be treated as GPL'd, instead of LGPL'd, to
> prevent license non-compliance.  There is a bunch of strictly GPLv2 code
> in the supposedly LGPL'd GLIBC.  There is also a bunch of non-GPL,
> copyrighted and licensed, FOSS code in there too.  That's why there are
> three (3) license files are included with GLIBC: COPYING, COPYING.LIB,
> and LICENSES.  COPYING.LIB is the LGPL for much of the code in the
> library. COPYING is for the strictly GPL files in the library.  LICENSES
> includes the FOSS licenses for the six (6) other copyright holders
> besides GNU ...  You read that correctly: SIX!  This is major FOSS
> license "pollution".  AIUI, because GLIBC is not purely LGPL, all
> current non-Unix/Linux/POSIX ports of the GCC compiler use their own,
> non-GPL, custom C library, e.g., DJGPP, MinGW, CygWin.  AIR, (Hey, I
> looked up GLIBC ...) the GCC compiler has some license exceptions
> preventing violations of it's GPL terms in non-GPL situations.  A huge
> part of the problem with GPL is that it does not have far less
> rectrictive license terms like other major FOSS licenses, e.g., BSD or
> MIT.  Another huge part of the problem with the GPL is that the original
> copyright holder is not required to forfit their copyrights, or is not
> prohibited from claiming copyrights at a later time.  The original
> copyright holder can close source the code at a later date.  

What's the number of FOSS licenses got to do with anything? The GPL and 
its variants are comparatively easy to understand. Would you rather wade 
through 40 pages of legalese from Apple / Microsoft / etc ? 


> The only
> real solution to most of the FOSS license issues is to eliminate the
> issue of copyright entirely, i.e., Public Domain, but that apparently is
> not recognized as a legal solution everywhere and is supposedly legally
> untested even in the USA.

It's shortsighted to claim (as I understand your post) that the GPL is 
anti-capitalist. It isn't. It actually helps break down monopolies: You 
now have a choice, one with which companies have to do real work to 
measure up against. That's not a bad thing surely?


Cheers,
Arnold








 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8420 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:32?pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
>> If you can see how a third party linking Apple's libraries
>> to their own code would cause Apple to have to release
>> source code, please tell us. ?I can't see it at all.
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> 
> I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that
> includes GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also
> statically links to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from
> Apple), I need to get permission to release the source code from each
> of the copyright holders of the non-FOSS code.  Apple isn't going to
> provide that permission.

That's my understanding, more or less.

>> > If you disagree, you are invited to point me to any authoritative
>> > statement from the GPL folk (not your interpretation, but their
>> > words) which says this can't happen.
>>
>> And you are invited to explain how it *can* happen.
> 
> No, it doesn't work that way.  I'm not responsible for reaching into
> the mind of Richard Stallman and friends and working out whatever
> rational, subjective, reasoned, or arcane thought processes go into
> their licenses.  They are the ones with the license and they are the
> ones with legal muscle behind them who will defend the terms of their
> license if they feel it is violated.  I am not a lawyer, not an expert
> in copyright law, and not someone who even gives a damn.

You must give a damn, at least a little one, or you wouldn't have said
anything.

>> As far as I can see the third party would be in breach of the
>> GPL (2 or 3), and would have to desist from shipping their
>> software. Apple wouldn't be a party to the GPL violation.
>> How is it possible for the actions of a third party to compel
>> you to release your code?
> 
> I don't know.

Right.  That's all we need to know, isn't it?

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8431 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 28, 3:07 pm, John Passaniti <john.passan...@gmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

> I interpret that as saying that if I create an executable that
> includes GPL code (my own code and/or other's code) *and* also
> statically links to non-FOSS code (such as system libraries from
> Apple), I need to get permission to release the source code from each
> of the copyright holders of the non-FOSS code.  Apple isn't going to
> provide that permission.

However, what it *says* is that if you wish to allow others to create
an executable that *includes* your own GPL code, and *also* statically
links to non-FOSS code, you need to *grant* permission to do so. If
you wish to make use of someone else's GPL licensed code in that way,
you need to be granted permission to do so.

The updated system library exception removes the need to explicitly
grant the right to link *to* system libraries, even statically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8471 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> writes:
>I am not a lawyer, not an expert
>in copyright law,

And it has become obvious in the last few postings that you are not
even an educated layman like some of us others.

> and not someone who even gives a damn.

You write a great mant postings that make funny claims for someone who
does not give a damn.

>I don't know.  That is the claim that has been made by others who
>study this more seriously than I do.

So you play the "useful idiot" for Apple and others, whose public
claims about the GPL are based on their commercial interest in
proprietary software, and on what they think they can make most of the
addressees believe; their use of terms like "viral" is part of that
strategy.

Funnily, Apple themselves have used Gforth for many years, so they
obviously don't believe themselves that the GPL is as dangerous to the
proprietary world as they want to make you believe.

- anton
-- 
M. Anton Ertl  http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
comp.lang.forth FAQs: http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/forth/faq/toc.html
     New standard: http://www.forth200x.org/forth200x.html
   EuroForth 2011: http://www.euroforth.org/ef11/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8410 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 28, 1:32 pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:

> And you are invited to explain how it *can* happen.  As far as I can
> see the third party would be in breach of the GPL (2 or 3), and would
> have to desist from shipping their software.  Apple wouldn't be a
> party to the GPL violation.  How is it possible for the actions of a
> third party to compel you to release your code?

IANDL, but since Apple takes a material interest in the sales of apps
in its app store, I'm not sure that its necessarily the actions of a
pure third party ~ unless Apple has terms and conditions that forbid
it and the third party was in violation of the terms and conditions,
which, provided that Apple made a good faith effort to enforce the
T&C, would seem to be an out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8422 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:32?pm, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
> 
>> And you are invited to explain how it *can* happen. ?As far as I can
>> see the third party would be in breach of the GPL (2 or 3), and would
>> have to desist from shipping their software. Apple wouldn't be a
>> party to the GPL violation. How is it possible for the actions of a
>> third party to compel you to release your code?
> 
> IANDL, but since Apple takes a material interest in the sales of apps
> in its app store, I'm not sure that its necessarily the actions of a
> pure third party ~ unless Apple has terms and conditions that forbid
> it and the third party was in violation of the terms and conditions,
> which, provided that Apple made a good faith effort to enforce the
> T&C, would seem to be an out.

It's an interesting thought.  However, there is nothing special about
GPL'd code in all this: there are other licences that insist on all
manner of things as a condition of use.  I presume that Apple requires
its app providers to certify that they have the rights to the
copyrights in the software they ship.  In the case described, neither
Apple nor the authors of the app have any right to use the GPL'd code.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8433 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 29, 5:37 am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
wrote:
> It's an interesting thought.  However, there is nothing special about
> GPL'd code in all this: there are other licences that insist on all
> manner of things as a condition of use.  I presume that Apple requires
> its app providers to certify that they have the rights to the
> copyrights in the software they ship.  In the case described, neither
> Apple nor the authors of the app have any right to use the GPL'd code.

What would be special about FOSS is that program authors who are
making heavy use of FOSS of others may be particularly likely to be
laboring under misconceptions regarding the rights that they have to
the source that they are making use of.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8463 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

BruceMcF <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Dec 29, 5:37?am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
>> It's an interesting thought. However, there is nothing special about
>> GPL'd code in all this: there are other licences that insist on all
>> manner of things as a condition of use. I presume that Apple requires
>> its app providers to certify that they have the rights to the
>> copyrights in the software they ship. In the case described, neither
>> Apple nor the authors of the app have any right to use the GPL'd code.
> 
> What would be special about FOSS is that program authors who are
> making heavy use of FOSS of others may be particularly likely to be
> laboring under misconceptions regarding the rights that they have to
> the source that they are making use of.

Maybe.  IME, though, people who work on free software tend to be
rather obsessive about legal terms.  Is it true that you really have
to link statically with Apple libraries to run on Apple systems?  That
sounds terribly inefficient, not to mention unreliable when a bug is
found in one of those libraries.

Andrew.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8425 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

In article <ybednQU2Y7JF_WbTnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@supernews.com>,
Andrew Haley  <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>John Passaniti <john.passaniti@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> iOS developers can choose to statically link Apple's non-FOSS
>> libraries to their application.  In that case, depending on which
>> GPL license you're using, I can certainly see how both GPLv2 and
>> GPLv3 could compel Apple to release source code if Apple didn't
>> explicitly forbid such in their developer license agreement.
>
>If you can see how a third party linking Apple's libraries to their
>own code would cause Apple to have to release source code, please tell
>us.  I can't see it at all.

I can see that. Suppose I have a Forth program intended to run on
an Apple. Nobody can hinder me to distribute the source with a GPL
license. It may be that it calls Apple libraries, and that it is
only useful on an Apple, but (assuming a Forth compiler on the Apple)
it *is* useful to people. They just have to go through the hassle of
linking it.

The binary is subject to the GPL license. You are only
allowed to distribute it if you make the whole source available.
This forbids everybody, including the original author, to
distribute binaries without making Apple's original library
source available. So by choosing GPL (and choosing to develop
for a proprietary system) the author is forbidden to
distribute his "own" binary.

Suppose that Apple wants to distribute it as a binary.
They can!  Because Apple is in a position to make the
library source available. So inasfar as Apple badly wants to
distribute this useful program in binary form, they are "forced"
to make their library source available, however ...

The options that are present if the program was "all rights reserved"
remain open to Apple, in particular negotiating a fee with
the author for the right to distribute binaries.

What Apple can't do is take my right away to make a derivation of
the original program to run on Samsung and distribute it.

>
>Andrew.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8436 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

On Dec 29, 8:53 am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> I can see that. Suppose I have a Forth program intended to run on
> an Apple. Nobody can hinder me to distribute the source with a GPL
> license. It may be that it calls Apple libraries, and that it is
> only useful on an Apple, but (assuming a Forth compiler on the
> Apple) it *is* useful to people. They just have to go through the
> hassle of linking it.

> The binary is subject to the GPL license. You are only
> allowed to distribute it if you make the whole source available.

> This forbids everybody, including the original author, to
> distribute binaries without making Apple's original library
> source available.

You are making this claim of GPLv3? The claim is clearly contradicted
by the actual license terms:
QUOTE
A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
included in conveying the object code work.
UNQUOTE

I think you may be going off of arguments regarding either explicit or
arguable terms of GPLv1 which do not apply to GPLv3

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#8464 — Re: GPL [Was: CarrierIQ Software and Forth]

In article <341025c2-1710-465b-bfd4-c59cd34fc2a8@d9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>,
BruceMcF  <agila61@netscape.net> wrote:
>On Dec 29, 8:53=A0am, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
>wrote:
>> I can see that. Suppose I have a Forth program intended to run on
>> an Apple. Nobody can hinder me to distribute the source with a GPL
>> license. It may be that it calls Apple libraries, and that it is
>> only useful on an Apple, but (assuming a Forth compiler on the
>> Apple) it *is* useful to people. They just have to go through the
>> hassle of linking it.
>
>> The binary is subject to the GPL license. You are only
>> allowed to distribute it if you make the whole source available.
>
>> This forbids everybody, including the original author, to
>> distribute binaries without making Apple's original library
>> source available.
>
>You are making this claim of GPLv3? The claim is clearly contradicted
>by the actual license terms:
>QUOTE
>A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded
>from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be
>included in conveying the object code work.
>UNQUOTE
>
>I think you may be going off of arguments regarding either explicit or
>arguable terms of GPLv1 which do not apply to GPLv3

I did not, for the sake of the argument, mention how the library was
linked. My example was clearly about a situation where the GPL
would apply. That you can give other examples is irrelevant.

Let's talk about what is reasonable here. Suppose Apple, at great
expense, has made a library for talking heads. Suppose I made
a fairly trivial program to have talking grandma's, heavily
leaning on Apple's library. It is unfair, and not attempted
by any GPL, that Apple should give up their rights in order to
allow me to distribute a full source to my program, including
the most essential part that I didn't write myself.

Neither does writing a program for the Pentium force Intel
to disclose the blue prints for their chips.

Groetjes Albert

--
-- 
Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS
Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth

csiph-web